SAD-A269 887, Technical Report GL-93-19

MUMA26
11111
11,
111 1!,il•li
1111fil
001 September 1993

US Army Corps
of Engineers
Waterways Experiment
Station

Evaluation of Surface Density Nuclear

Gauges for Acceptance Testing
of Asphalt Concrete Overlays
by Lee E. Tidwell, Randy C. Ahlrich, George L. Regan
GeotechnicalLaboratory

0iC 9
rlEC2% EUII

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited

* 9 ,22345

Prepared for Federal Highway Administration

 The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising,
publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names
does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use
of such commercial products.

SPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

 Technical Report (--93-19
September 1993

Evaluation of Surface Density Nuclear

Gauges for Acceptance Testing
of Asphalt Concrete Overlays
by Lee E. Tidwell, Randy C. Ahlrich, George L. Regan
Geotechnical Laboratory
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station
3909 Halls Ferry Road Accesion For
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 NTIS CRAM V.

DTiC TAB
Ur.annoanced
Jjstification ............
By ..... ........ .......

Di-t ibution I

Ava3abbiity Codes

Avafl a,ýdcijor
Dist Sppc•CU

Final report
Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited

Prepared for Federal Highway Administration

Washington, DC 20591
US Army Corps
of Engineers .
Waterways Experiment N.-
Station°i i

SU"-

WALLLSFERTy

Waterways Experiment Station Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Tidwell, Lee E.
Evaluation ol surface density nuclear gauges for acceptance testing of
asphalt concrete overlays / by Lee E. Tidwell, Randy C. Ahirich, George
L. Regan ;prepared for Federal Highway Admrinistration.
52 p. : ill. ;28 cm. -- (Technical report ;GL-93-19)
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Pavements, Asphalt concrete -- Testing - Instruments. 2. Asphalt
concrete -- Density -- Measurement -- Instruments. 3. Radioactive
gages -- Evaluation. I. Ahlrich, Randy C. II.Regan, George L. Ill.
United States. Federal Highway Administration. IV. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station. V. Title. V. Series: Technical report
(U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; GL-93-19.
TA7 W34 no.GL-93-19
Contents

Preface ............................................ vii

I-Introduction ... ..................................... I

Background ........................................ I
Objective .. ....................................... I
Scope .. ......................................... I

2-Methods for Density Determination ........................ 3

Density by Conventional Methods ......................... 3

"Two Mass" Method . .............................. 3
"Three Mass" Method .. ............................ 4
Density by Nuclear Methods . ........................... 5
Direct Transmission Density Measurement ................ 5
Backscatter D.-nsity Measurement ...................... 5
Air-Gap Density Measurement ........................ 6

3-Literature Review .................................... 8

NAPA Sponsored Nuclear Gauge Study .................... 8

Texas DOT Sponsored Nuclear Gauge Study....................8
FHWA Sponsored Nuclear Gauge Study .. ................. 8
Australian Nuclear Gauge Study .... .................... 10
TRB Sponsored Nuclear Gauge Study ........................ 10
FAA Sponsored Nuclear Gauge Study ..................... 11
Minnesota DOT Sponsored Nuclear Gauge Study ................ 12

4-Gauge Characteristics ............................... 13

Troxler's Model 4640 Thin Layer Density Gauge .............. 13

Troxler's Model 3411-B Surface MoisturefDensity Gauge ......... 14
Gauge Calibration ................................... 16

5-Experimental Plan . ................................. 17

Iii
 6-Description of Test Locations and Density Data ............... 19

Albany County Airport, New York ........................ 19

Coffeeville, M ississippi .............................. 20
Enid, M ississippi . .................................. 22
Pennsylvania Turnpike ................................ 25
Saratoga County Airport, New York ....................... 25
WES Test Section ................................... 27

7-Discussion of Results ................................. 31

Field Cores to 4640 Gauge ............................ 31

Field Cores to 341 1-B Gauge ............................ 35
Parallel Gauge Readings to Transverse Gauge Readings .......... 35

8-Conclusions and Recommendations ........................ 41

Conclusions ....................................... 41
Recommendations ................................... 42

References . ........................................ 43

SF 298 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Figures

Figure 1. Direct transmission density measurement .............. 5

Figure 2. Backscatter density measurement .................... 6

Figure 3. Air-gap density measurement ...................... 7

Figure 4. Placement of gauges . .......................... 18

Figure 5. 4640 gauge - mean of densities .................... 33

Figure 6. 4640 gauge - standard deviations of densities ........... 34

Figure 7. 341 1-B gauge - mean of densities .................. 37

Figure 8. 3411-B gauge - standard deviations of densities .......... 38

iv
List of Tables

Table 1. 4640 Gauge Precision Values ...................... 14

Table 2. 341
6-B Gauge Precision Values .............. ...... 15

Table 3. Asphalt Concrete Mix Properties ................... 20

Table 4. Gauge Densities Parallel to Paving Direction versus Core Density -

Albany County Airport, NY ...................... 21

Table 5. Gauge Densities Transverse to Paving Direction versus Core

Density - Albany County Airport, NY ................ 21

Table 6. Gauge Densities Parallel to Paving Direction versus Core Density -

Coffeeville, MS ............................... 23

Table 7. Gauge Densities Transverse to Paving Direction versus Core

Density - Coffeeville, MS ........................ 23

Table 8. Gauge Densities Parallel to Paving Direction versus Core Density -

Enid, MS ................................... 24

Table 9. Gauge Densities Transverse to Paving Direction versus Core

Density - Enid, M S ............................ 24

Table 10. Gauge Densities Parallel to Paving Direction versus Core Density -
Pennsylvania Turnpike .......................... 26

Table 11. Gauge Densities Transverse to Paving Direction versus Core

Density - Pennsylvania Turnpike ................... 26

Table 12. Gauge Densities Parallel to Paving Direction versus Core Density -
Saratoga County Airport, NY ..................... 28

Table 13. Gauge Densities Transverse to Paving Direction versus Core

Density -Saratoga County Airport, NY ................ 28

Table 14. Gauge Densities Parallel to Paving Direction versus Core Density -
WES ...................................... 29

Table 15. Gauge Densities Transverse to Paving Direction versus Core

Density - W ES .............................. 29

Table 16. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations - 4640 Gauge . . . 32

I I I t |V I II In
 Table 17. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations - 3411-B Gauge . . 36

Table 18. Parallel Gauge Readings To Transverse Gauge Readings -

4640 Gauge ................................. 39

Table 19. Parallel Gauge Readings To Transverse Gauge Readings -

3411-B Gauge ................................ 40

Conversion Factors,
Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement

Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to metric

units as follows:

Multiply By To Obtain

cubic feet 0.02831685 cubic meters

feet 0.3048 meters

inches 2.54 centimeters

pounds (mass) per 16.01846 kilograms per
cubic foot cubic meter

vi
Preface

The information reported herein was sponsored by the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under the Federal
Lands Highway Coordinated Technology Implementation Program (CTIP)
study C-3, "Evaluation of Thin Layer Nuclear Gauges for Acceptance
Testing." Technical Monitor for this study was Mr. Alfred Logie.

This study was conducted by personnel of the Pavement Systems Division

(PSD), Geotechnical Laboratory (GL) at the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station (WES), Vicksburg, Mississippi, from May 1989 through
December 1992. Ms. Lee E. Tidwell, Mr. Randy C. Ahlrich, and Mr.
George L. Regan were the Principal Investigators and authors of the report.
Messrs. C. W. Dorman, J. P. Duncan, and R. T. Graham obtained the field
cut cores and the nuclear density gauge readings. Messrs. H. McKnight and
3. K. Simmons conducted the laboratory density tests on the field cut cores.

This study was conducted under the general supervision of Dr. W. F.

Marcuson 111, Director, GL. Direct supervision was provided by Dr. G. M.
Hammitt I1, Chief, PSD, and Mr. T. W. Vollor, Chief, Material Research
and Construction Technology Branch.

The Director of WES during the preparation and publication of

this report was Dr. Robert W. Whalin. The Commander was
COL Bruce K. Howard, EN.

vii
 1 Introduction

Background

Nuclear density and moisture content gauges are examples of technical

applications of radiological materials in the construction industry. Nuclear
gauges use gamma radiation energy to interact with various geomaterials to
allow quick approximations of density. Early applications to geotechnical
engineering construction were made during the 1950's (NCHRP 125, 1977,
and USDA 1955). Some of these applications included new ways of
determining density and moisture content of soils during earth mass
construction such as dams and levees. Other applications included density
determinations of pavement materials to enhance compaction control during
construction (Hughes 1962, Webster 1974). Since the mid 1980's, a newer
generation of nuclear density measuring devices has been developed for the
use on thin layer asphalt concrete. The ability of this type of device to
provide quick indications of density in a nondestructive manner is appealing to
both pavement owners and contractors. This appeal formed the basis of the
study to evaluate nuclear density gauges for possible use on Federal Lands
Highway Program (FLHP) projects.

Objective

The objective of this study is to compare the field densities obtained with a
thin layer nuclear density gauge and a surface moisture-density nuclear gauge
to the laboratory densities obtained from conventional field cut cores from
asphalt construtLion jobs. The study findings are to provide guidance on use
of nuclear density gauges on FLHP projects.

Scope

The scope of this study included a review of available literature and

existing data, field density determinations and a statistical analysis of the data.
Two nuclear gauges, Troxler Models 4640 and 3411 -B, were used in six field
studies to determine in-place densities of the asphalt concrete pavement.
These nuclear density readings were compared to field cores cut at the same
locations. These data were evaluated to determine the correlation between

Chapter 1 Introduction
gauge densities and field cores and the effect of gauge placement.
Recommendations were made concerning the use of these gauges for quality
verification and for t.eptance testing of asphalt concrete pavements.

Chapter I Introduction
 2 Methods for Density
Determination

Density by Conventional Methods

Density and bulk specific gravity of bituminous mixes have been

conventionally determined on both laboratory manufactured specimens and
field cut cores by weighing them and determining their volumes. There are
two main methods of doing this: the "two mass" method and the "three mass"
method. These methods involve procedures as given in ASTM Standard D
2726, AASHTO T 166, and MIL-STD-620A Method 101.

"Two Mass' Method

The "two mass" method carries an assumption of mix impermeability by

water; the specimens are generally weighed dry in air and submerged in
water. The following equations are used to calculate density and bulk specific
gravity by the "two mass" method.

A G, y,•
A-B

A G,
BSG =
A-B

where

y =density of mix assuming impermeability

A = mass of dry mix weighed in air, grams

B = mass of mix weighed in water, grams

Methods for Density Determination

3
Chapter 2
 G•, = specific gravity of water at test temperature

3'., = density of water at test temperature

BSG = bulk specific gravity of mix

"Three Mass" Method

The "three mass" method includes a basic assumption; if u ater enters a

specimen during submerged weighing, the water and volume are accounted for
during the third weighing after the specimen has been removed from the water
and wiped with a damp cloth (saturated surface dry condition). In other
words, it assumes that all water entering a specimen during submerged
weighing remains in the air voids and/or aggregate cut surfaces after removal.
The following equations are used to calculate density and bulk specific gravity
by the "three mass" method.

A G. y. A G. y.
A-B + C-A C-B

BSG = A G.
C-B

where

-y = density of mix allowino for permeability

A = mass of dry mix weighed in air, grams

B = mass of mix weighed in water, grams

C = damp mass of mix after wiping with damp cloth, grams

Gý = specific gravity of water at test temperature

-y,. = density of water at test temperature

BSG = bulk specific gravity of mix

4 Chapter 2 Methods for Densty Determination

 Density by Nuclear Methods

Direct transmission density measurement

The direct transmission method requires making an access hole in the test
material and lowering the nuclear source into the hole to the desired
measurement depth (Figure 1) This method is generally applicable for any
type of material where an access hole can be punched or drilled with only
negligible disturbance to the volume of material to be measured. This method
has the advantage that the depth of measurement can be controlled (usually in
2-in. increments up to depths of 8 in.). A disadvantage of this method is that
it is not a truly nondestructive test since an access hole must be made in the
material tested. This method is normally used with cohesive and cohesionless
materials in base, subbase, and subgrade layers but not with asphalt concrete
layers.

, -- GAGE

TES T I GAMMA PHOTON

SURFACE DE TEC'TORS

M~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fE'VTP T.,ý

DEPTH OF PATHS OF GAMMA PHOTONS

MoEASUREME NT

'q-GAMMAA PHO7TON SOUriCE

ACCES HOLE

Figure 1. Direct transmission density measurement

Backscatter Density Measurement

Both the source and detectors -•.-•ain in the gage near the test surface in
the backscatter method (Figure 2). The depth of measurement usually ranges
from 0.5 to 6 in. below the test surface. This method is applicable on
materials for which a specific calibration curve has been developed. The main
advantages of the backscatter method are: (a) it is simple to perform and (b)
it is a nondestructive test. Disadvantages of this method are: (a) one
calibration curve cannot be used for all materials, (b) the depth of

Methods for Density Determination

5
Chapter 2
 measurement cannot be closely controlled, (c) the material nearest the test
surface has the greatest influence on the test. This method is primarily used
with - "salt concrete layers. NCHRP 125 (1971) contains two appendices
with c a.sive literature reviews and discussions of factors affecting gamma
sourced backscatter density gauges.

,,f-GAGE

TEST ",GAMMA PHOTON SOURCE GAMMA PHOTON

SURPFACE-. DETECTORS

PATHS OF GAMMA
MEASUREMENT ' PHOTONS

Figure 2. Backscatter density measurement

Air-Gap Density Measurement

The air-gap method was developed to eliminate the chemical composition

errors inherent in the backscatter method. The method involves ratioing an
air-gap measurement taken from a fixed height above the test surface to a
backscatter measurement (Figure 3). The air-gap method generally yields
satisfactory results and uses only one calibration curve for various types of
materials. However, like the backscatter method, the depth of measurement
cannot be closely controlled and the material nearest the surface has the
greatest influence on the test result.

6 Chapter 2 Methods for Density Determination

 TEST A-A

PHOTONS

Figure 3. Air-gap versus backscatter density measurement

Chapter 2 Methods for Density Determination

 3 Literature Review

Several recent studies have investigated some of the currently available

nuclear density gauges and their ability to estimate the density of a surface
layer of asphalt mix during construction. A summary of each study is
discussed below:

NAPA Sponsored Nuclear Gauge Study

Stroup-Gardiner and Newcomb (TRR 1178, 1988) reported a study to

develop a precision statement on the use of a nuclear density gauge by method
ASTM D 2950. Field test locations were in Galveston, Texas, McLean,
Virginia, and Reno, Nevada. The field tests provided a database of more than
900 nuclear density readings generated by 31 laboratories using various
models of gauges. Cores were cut after all gauge readings were made.
Among their findings were the following:

a. Nuclear gauge reading times of 0.25, 1, and 4 minutes did not produce
significantly different density readings at the selected mat locations.

b. The ranges of standard deviations between gauges for I minute gauge

readings were 1.81 pcf to 3.86 pcf in Texas, 1.32 pcf to 3.79 pcf in
Virginia, and 3.05 pcf to 5.75 pcf in Nevada.

c. Each gauge appeared to have its own individual regression relationship

between core density and its approximation of that density.

Texas DOT Sponsored Nuclear Gauge Study

Kennedy, Tahmoressi, and Solaimanian (MRB 1989) evaluated a Troxler

4640 thin layer density gauge to determine if it could be used to accurately
determine in-place density of hot mix asphalt concrete surfaces. Gauge and
corresponding core densities, at several test areas within seven different Texas
paving projects, were studied. Four projects contained limestone aggregates
and three contained siliceous aggregates. The gauge was placed at the test
areas and rotated in 90 degree increments before recording four 1 minute

8 Chapter 3 Literature Review

 readings. After all gauge readings were made, cores were cut and densities
were determined using ASTM method D 2726. Among their findings were:

a. The gauge was very sensitive to improper seating. Improper seating of

the gauge would usually result in extremely low nuclear density
readings.

b. The difference between core and gauge densities was significantly

higher for siliceous mixes than for limestone mixes. For siliceous
mixes the difference ranged from -12.2 pcf to 2.4 pcf where for
limestone mixes the difference ranged from -3.9 pcf to 3.2 pcf.

c. The use of calibration lines through regression analyses significantly

improved prediction of core densities from nuclear measurements.

d. Even with calibration lines, the use of the gauge must be treated
cautiously and an acceptable range of differences and risk of error
must be clearly specified.

FHWA Sponsored Nuclear Gauge Study

A recent draft report by Belt, Santelli, and Hansen (FHWA 1990) details
their evaluation of the state-of-the-art capabilities of nuclear density gauges to
monitor the density of asphalt concrete. One of the objectives of this report
was to establish the capability of commercially available, thin-lift and full-
depth static nuclear gauges for monitoring the density of thin asphalt concrete
layers. Five models of static gauges manufactured by Campbell Pacific
Nuclear, Seaman Nuclear, Humboldt Scientific, and Troxler Electronics, and
three dynamic models (including an FHWA prototype) were compared in the
study. The Troxler 4640 thin layer density gauge was one of the static
backscatter gauges that was evaluated.

The gauges were initially tested in the laboratory under controlled

conditions and subsequently tested in the field. All manufacturers'
instructions and recommendations were strictly followed. A minimum of four
density readings were taken and averaged for each density measurement. The
density measurement was then compared with the actual densities of the
material. When very questionable readings were observed, they were
discarded and repeated immediately. The study is summarized below:

a. When the Troxler 4640 gauge was used in the rough surface mode, the
scatter in the data appeared to be greater than usual.

b. There was always scatter in the individual data points and occasionally,
a gauge would give a very questionable reading. This was sometimes
caused by improperly seating the gauge but on most occasions there
was no apparent cause for the error.

9
Chapter 3 Literature Review
 c. Chemical composition error is one of the most significant sources of
error in nuclear density measurements.

d. Nuclear gauges can significantly over- or underestimate density if the

operator relies only on the standard factory calibration.

e. Proper offset correction for each project was found to be critical in

maintaining the accuracy of nuclear density measurements.

f Both static and dynamic nuclear gauges were recommended as useful

tools in construction monitoring of density and density growth of thin
lift asphalt mixes.

Australian Nuclear Gauge Study

The Materials Engineering Branch of the Main Roads Department in

Western Australia investigated the suitability of a Troxier 4640-B thin layer
nuclear density gauge to determine the density of asphalt (Asphalt Review
1992). Their objective was to determine the ability of the gauge to measure
asphalt density with sufficient accuracy and reliability for use in deciding
conformance with project specifications. The 4640-B gauge was used at 10
randomly selected sites in 13 lots of asphalt, and cores were subsequently
taken from the same locations. Densities were computed using the factory
calibration equation and special calibration equations. The asphalt lots
included both dense and open graded asphalt. Among their findings were:

a. For dense graded asphaltic concrete, the gauge underestimated density

in comparison with the core results, while for open graded mix, the
gauge overestimated results.

b. For dense graded asphaltic concrete, the variability of measurement

was higher with the gauge than with the core result while with the
open graded mix the gauge gave a lower variability.

c. The gauge has the potential to provide a suitable measurement of

asphalt density, but more appropriate calibration equations are needed.

TRB Sponsored Nuclear Gauge Survey

The Transportation Research Board (TRB) published a TR Circular entitled

"Nuclear Density Gauge Monitoring of Asphalt Concrete Compaction" (TRB
1987). For this circular, TRB surveyed 49 State highway agencies and five
Canadian provincial highway agencies on their use of nuclear moisture and
density gauges.

The most common problem was the poor agreement between cores and
gauge readings. Attempts to correlate the two methods by comparing

10 Chapter 3 Literature Review

 measurements at exactly the same point in the field usually failed. Likely

reasons for the poor correlations at specific sites included:

a. The different volumes of material examined by each method,

b. Surface roughness effects and chemical composition effects on the

gauge readings.

c. Surface roughness effects on the core density determination.

d. Inherent variability of both test methods.

e. Inadequate calibration of the nuclear gauges.

f Operator errors.

FAA Sponsored Nuclear Gauge Study

A FAA sponsored report by Burati and Elzoghbi (TRB 1987) summarizes

the findings of a research effort (a) to determine whether correlation exists
between the results of nuclear density gauges and core densities obtained in
the field and (b) to determine whether the use of nuclear density gauges in lieu
of cores is warranted. Field data were gathered on two construction projects
(the Morristown, NJ Municipal Airport and the Rochester-Monroe County
Airport in Rochester, NY) using three nuclear density gauges (Troxler 3411 -
B, Seaman C-75BP, and CPN M-2). The data was statistically analyzed to
identify correlations between the gauge readings and the core densities. The
following conclusions were found in this study:

a. There appeared to be a higher degree of correlation between the gauges

than between the gauges and the core densities.

b. When taking gauge readings of a joint, perpendicular gauge orientation

(i.e. the radiation source of the gauge and detector were on opposite
sides of the joint) yielded results closer to the core density.

c. In all cases, the gauge results had lower mat mean density values than
the core mean value.

d. Use of nuclear gauges should not simply be substituted into current

acceptance plans in place of cores if the current acceptance limits and
procedures were developed from historical core data. The
development of acceptance procedures specifically for nuclear gauges
would be advantageous because of the large sample sizes and the rapid
results that are possible from such gauges.

Chopter 3 Literature Review 11

 Minnesota DOT Sponsored Nuclear Gauge Study

The Minnesota DOT published an interim report entitled "Accuracy and

Precision of Thin Lift Nuclear Density Gauges" (Reinaas, 1989). The
purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the
recently manufactured thin lift nuclear density gauges. The Seaman C-200
nuclear density gauge equipped with accudepth, a Troxler Model 4640 thin lift
nuclear density gauge, and a Troxler Model 3411-B nuclear density gauge was
used in this study. All of the projects involved in the study had an asphalt
wearing course of 1.5 inches or less. The gauges were tested on various mix
designs including modified mixes with steel slag, taconite tailings, and granite;
as well as other conventional mix designs. The following trends were
obtained from the data:

a. The Seaman C-200 nuclear density gauge reads significantly higher

values than the Troxler Model 4640.

b. Material content of the mix appears to have a significant affect on the

accuracy of the nuclear gauge readings.

c. On conventional mixes containing steel slag, granite and traprock, the

Troxler Model 4640 consistently under estimated the core density. On
mixtures with taconite tailings, the gauge consistently over estimated
the core density.

d. The Seaman C-200 consistently over estimated the core density on all
mix designs except the granite mixes with low AC content.

e. The predictive ability of the nuclear density gauges with respect to core
results varied from project to project and from gauge to gauge.

The results of the research showed that the readings of the nuclear density
gauges and the density of the cores had a strong correlation to one another but
the relationship was not consistent. It was determined that since the nuclear
density gauges can significantly over or under estimate the core density, the
use of nuclear density measurements in lieu of core samples, with existing
acceptance limits, is not appropriate.

12 Chapter 3 Literature Review

 4 Gauge Characteristics

Troxier's Model 4640 Thin Layer Density Gauge

The Troxler model 4640 Thin Layer Density Gauge is designed to measure
the density of a thin layer of asphaltic concrete (1 to 2 1/2 inches). The 4640
gauge contains an 8 millicurie Cesium 137 source of gamma energy,
microprocessor electronics, stored software, and Geiger Mueller detectors.
According to manufacturer's literature (Troxler 1987), the 4640 gauge is
capable of operating in the following user selectable modes:

a. Normal or surface voids. When a mix gradation has more than

40 percent by weight passirg the No. 8 sieve (2.38 mm) use the
normal (smooth) mode.

b. lIme of reading. This is selectable from 1/2, 1, 2, or 4 minute

periods.

c. Surface layer thickness. This is selectable from 1 to 2 1/2 inches as

appropriate for the asphalt layer under construction.

d. Regular or special calibration. The user selects either the internal

factory calibration or inputs a special calibration for a particular paving
job/mix. Calibration range is from 100 to 170 pcf.

Gauge precision has been described by the manufacturer (Troxler 1987) for
both the normal (smooth surface) mode and the surface voids mode for an
average density of 140 pcf. The values given are one standard deviation.
The following summarizes precision values given for a typical 2 inch (5 cm)
thick reading.

Chapter 4 Gauge Characteristics Troxier's Model 4640 Thin Layer Density Gauge 13
 Table 1
4640 Gauge Precision Values
Precision

Mode Time Iminutes) pcl kg/rnm

Normal 0.5 1.13 18.12

1 0.80 12.81

2 0.57 9.13

4 0.40 6.41

Surface Voids 0.5 3.54 56.64

1 2.26 36.20

2 1.60 25.63

4 1.13 18.10

The electronic system is capable of storing 40 watt-hours of energy in

rechargeable batteries and consuming 0.4 watts maximum. Its internal
memory stores all user settings and up to 100 separate test data summaries
with each summary capable of including station number, distance and
direction from centerline, density and percent Marshall compaction, or density
and percent voids. An RS 232C serial port allows downloading of the stored
information from the gauge to a computer at a rate of 37.5 to 9600 baud.

Case dimensions are approximately 19 by 9 by 6 inches with a handle that

extends 11 inches above the bottom of the gauge. The unit weighs about 36
pounds and can operate in ambient temperatures of 14-1580 F (-10-70* C) on a
surface temperature up to 3500 F (1750 C).

Troxier's Model 3411-B Surface Moisture-Density

Gauge
The 3411-B gauge is specifically designed to measure the moisture content
and density of soils, soil-stone aggregate bases, cement and asphalt treated
bases, and asphalt paving. Density measurements are made utilizing an 8 mCi
Cesium 137 radioactive source and 2 Geiger Mueller gamma ray detectors.
Some of the gamma rays emitted by the Cesium source are transmitted
through the test material to the detectors and are counted. Counts over a
fixed time period, such as one minute, are related to density.

In the backscatter density mode, gauge density precision has been

described by the manufacturer (Troxler 1984) for a material with an average
density of 120 pcf as is shown in Table 2.

14 Chapter 4 Gauge Characteristics Troxler's Model 4840 Thin Layer Density Gauge
 ! C

SI 44

Wu

u z 44 44 1 44
0

U0
- - -H 44

-= 40 0 4. N

a.
04
aU CO

U)
W0
;0 02

"S 2

al I I I I IU IO

CL5

Chapter 4 Gouge Characteristics Tfoxler's Model 4640 Thin Layer Density Gouge
 The 3411-B gauge contains a microcomputer which holds all calibration
constants and algorithms necessary to compute and display directly wet
density, moisture, dry density, percent moisture, and percent compaction in
either kilograms per cubic meter or pounds per cubic foot. For obtaining the
density of asphaltic concrete overlays, only the wet density measurements are
required.

The 3411-B gauge is 14.5 by 9 by 7.2 inches in size and weighs 36

pounds. The shipping weight of the gauge with case is 75 pounds (Troxier
3400 Series Operators Manual, 1984).

Gauge Calibration
Nuclear gauges are calibrated in order to establish the relationship between
gauge output and sample density. Nuclear gauge manufacturers typically
supply calibration curves that have been established by taking counts on a
series of large natural or manufactured blocks and then statistically fitting a
calibration curve through the data points (TR Circular, 1987).

The most widely used calibration procedure is to adjust the calibration

curve on a project by project basis by applying a correction factor established
from cores. Nuclear gauge readings and cores are both taken initially on a
project. The average difference between the densities by the two methods is
established. That difference becomes an adjustment factor which is applied to
all subsequent nuclear gauge readings.

16 Chapter 4 Gauge Characteristics Troxler's Model 4640 Thin Layer Dansity Gauge
 5 Experimental Plan

This study was conducted to compare the densities obtained from a Troxier
model 4640 gauge and a Troxler model 3411-B gauge to the densities obtained
from cored specimens at selected test sites. These test sites were pavements
from various geographical locations; some of the pavements were relatively
old (1 year or more past construction) while others were under construction.
The following experimental procedure was used:

a. Nuclear gauge readings were taken at random locations at each test

site.

b. At each location, four consecutive readings were obtained. Each gauge

was rotated 90 degrees between each reading (Figure 4) such that two
readings were taken parallel to the paving direction and two readings
were taken transverse to the paving direction.

c. For the 4640 gauge, the gauge was set for a two inch asphalt layer
thickness with one minute readings. The gauge orientation and the
corresponding gauge calculated density were recorded for each
measurement.

d. For the 3411-B gauge, the gauge was set on backscatter mode with one
minute readings. The gauge orientation and the corresponding gauge
calculated wet density were recorded for each measurement.

e. A 4 inch diameter core was cut from each location where gauge
readings were taken. The core-s were labelled and returned to the
laboratory. The density of the portion of the core that corresponds to
the gauge layer thickness (i.e. top 2 inches of core) was obtained by
ASTM D 2726.

f. The gauge densities obtained in steps c and d were compared to the cut
core densities obtained in step e.

17
Chapter 5 Experimental Plan
 B

C*

Figure 4. Placement of Gauges

. . . = l !!!

18 Chapter S Experimental Plan

 6 Description of Test
Locations and Density Data

Albany County Airport, New York

On July 8, 1992, WES personnel used the 4640 gauge and the 3411-B
gauge to obtain density measurements on a small parking apron at the Albany
County Airport in New York. The parking apron had been overlaid in
September 1991. The asphalt concrete overlay was approximately 2 inches
thick. The asphalt concrete material was produced and placed according to
New York Department of Transportation specifications. The asphalt concrete
mix properties are listed in Table 3. Gauge and core densities were obtained
as described in Part 5.

The results of the core density values and nuclear gauge readings are listed
in Tables 4-5. The core density values ranged from 134.5 pcf to 147.9 pcf
with a mean of 143.2 pcf and a standard deviation of 4.9 pcf. The 4640
gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged from 138.0 pcf to
163.8 pcf with a mean of 146.5 pcf and a standard deviation of 9.3 pcf. The
4640 gauge density readings in the transverse direction ranged from 141.4 pcf
to 155.9 pcf with a mean of 145.3 pcf and a standard deviation of 5.0 pcf.
The 3411-B gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged from 120.1
pcf to 142.9 pcf with a mean of 137.4 pcf and a standard deviation of 7.9 pcf.
The 3411-B gauge density readings in the transverse direction ranged from
116.9 pcf to 145.8 pcf with a mean of 137.3 pcf and a standard deviation of
9.6 pcf.

The difference between the core density values and the nuclear gauge
readings were also determined. The percent difference between the core
density and the 4640 gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged
from -5.5 to 11.7 with a mean of 2.4 and a standard deviation of 5.6. The
percent difference between the core density and the 4640 gauge density
readings in the transverse direction ranged from -4.3 to 7.7 with a mean of
1.6 and a standard deviation of 4.7. The percent difference between the core
density and the 3411-B gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged
from -16.6 to 2.1 with a mean of -3.9 and a standard deviation of 6.3. The
percent difference between the core density and the 3411-B gauge density

Chapter 6 Description of Test Locations and Density Data '9

 readings in the transverse direction ranged from -18.8 to 5.7 with a mean of

-3.9 and a standard deviation of 8.1.

Coffeeville, Mississippi

The Corps of Engineers (COE) was responsible for overlaying a city road
in Coffeeville, MS. The COE damaged the road by hauling sand bags and
heavy equipment on it to protect a levee from flooding. On October 21,
1992, the 4640 gauge and the 3411 -B gauge were evaluated on this newly
overlaid road. The asphalt concrete overlay was approximately 2 inches
thick. The asphalt concrete mix properties are listed in Table 3. Gauge and
core densities were obtained as described in Part 5.

Table 3
Summary of Asphalt Concrete Properties
Coffee-
Sieve Size Albany will* Enid PA Turnpike Saratoga WES

3/4 100 100 100 100 100 100

1/2 100 100 100 96.7 99 95.3

3/8 98 95 95 90.5 90 88.9

No. 4 64 59 59 61.4 62 71.3

No. 8 49 43 43 44.9 50 49.8

No. 16 30 33 33 32.4 38 38.3

No. 30 20 23 23 24.0 26 31.6

No. 50 12 10 10 16.1 16 18.5

No. 100 8 7 7 10.2 9 8.9

No. 200 5 4.7 4.7 7.1 6 6.7

Asphalt
Content
(%) 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.1 5.65 4.9

Stability
fibs) 3010 1985 1985 4500 2529 2232

Flow (in.) 11.1 11 11 14.5 11.8 12

VTM 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.6

VFA 74.6 76.3 76.3 79.6 78.5 76.2

Density 150.4 144.4 144.4 151.2 146.6 150.4

Theoretical 157.5 150.1 150.1 158.2 152.0 155.9

Density
Aggregate lime- gravel gravel granite lime- gravel
Type stone stone

20 Chapter 6 Description of Test Locations and Density Data

 Table 4
Gauge Densities Parallel to Paving Direction versus Core Densities -
Albany County Airport. New York

3411-81
4640 3411-8 4640/Core Core
Core Gauge Gauge Density Density
Density Density Density Difference Difference
Location _Ipcf) (pcf) Ipcf) 1%)

A-1 138.2 139.1 1411 + 0.7 + 2.1

A-2 146.6 163.8 140.1 + 11.7 4.4

A-3 144.0 144.2 120.1 + 0.1 16.6

A-4 134.5 142.8 136.9 + 6.2 + 1.8

A-5 147.9 154.4 138.8 + 4.4 - 6.2

A-6 144.8 143.3 141.9 1.0 2.0

A-7 146.1 138.0 142.9 - 5.5 2.2

Mean 143.2 146.5 137.4 + 2.4 3.9

Standard
Deviation 4.9 9.3 7.9 5,6 6.3

Table 5
Gauge Densities Transverse to Paving Direction versus Core Densities -
Albany County Airport, New York

3411-8/
4640 3411-8 4640/Core Core
Core Gauge Gauge Density Density
Density Density Density Difference Difference
Location (pcf) (pcf) (pcf) (%) M%)

A-1 138.2 142.6 142.6 + 3.2 + 3.2

A-2 146.6 145.9 139.3 - 0.5 5.0

A-3 144.0 141.4 116.9 1.8 - 18.8

A-4 134.5 144.9 142.1 + 7.7 + 5.7

A-5 147.9 141.6 138.9 - 4.3 6.1

A-6 144.8 155.9 135.8 + 7.7 6.2

A-7 146.1 144.7 145.8 . 1.0 0.2

Mean 143.2 145.3 137.3 + 1.6 3.9

Standard
Deviation 4.9 5.0 9.6 4.7 8.1
,, ,21

Chapter 6 Description of Test Locations and Density Date

21
 The results of the core density values and nuclear gauge readings are listed
in Tables 6 and 7. The core density values ranged from 126.7 pcf to 139.9
pcf with a mean of 134.4 pcf and a standard deviation of 5.4 pcf. The 4640
gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged from 123.6 pcf to
138.0 pcf with a mean of 130.7 pcf and a standard deviation of 5.0 pcf. The
4640 gauge density readings in the transverse direction ranged from 125.6 pcf
to 134.4 pcf with a mean of 131.1 pcf and a standard deviation of 3.5 pcf.
The 3411-B gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged from
121.6 pcf to 135.5 pcf with a mean of 129.2 pcf and a standard deviation of
4.7 pcf. The 3411-B gauge density readings in the transverse direction ranged
from 121.0 pcf to 133.5 pcf with a mean of 128.2 pcf and a standard
deviation of 4.5 pcf.

The difference between the core density values and the nuclear gauge
readings were also determined. The percent difference between the core
density and the 4640 gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged
from -6.4 to -1.0 with a mean of -2.8 and a standard deviation of 2.2. The
percent difference between the core density and the 4640 gauge density
readings in the transverse direction ranged from -5.2 to -0.9 with a mean of
-2.4 and a standard deviation of 1.8. The percent difference between the core
density and the 3411-B gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged
from -6.2 to -2.2 with a mean of -3.9 and a standard deviation of 1.3. The
percent difference between the core density and the 3411-B gauge density
readings in the transverse direction ranged from -7.5 to -3.4 with a mean of
-4.6 and a standard deviation of 1.5.

Enid, Mississippi

On October 22, 1992, WES personnel used the 4640 gauge and the 3411-B
gauge on a small parking lot in Enid, MS to determine ii, place densities.
This parking lot had been recently overlaid by the Corps of Engineers. The
asphalt concrete overlay was approximately 2 inches thick. The asphalt
concrete mix properties are listed in Table 3. Gauge and core densities were
obtained in the same manner as previously described in Part 5.

The results of the core density values and nuclear gauge readings are listed
in Tables 8 and 9. The core density values ranged from 130.7 pcf to 140.0
pcf with a mean of 136.1 pcf and a standard deviation of 3.6 pcf. The 4640
gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged from 112.4 pcf to
132.0 pcf with a mean of 127.4 pcf and a standard deviation of 8.4 pcf. The
4640 gauge density readings in the transverse direction ranged from 118.3 pcf
to 132.1 pcf with a mean of 127.8 pcf and a standard deviation of 5.4 pcf.
The 341 1-B gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged from
126.2 pcf to 133.9 pcf with a mean of 130.9 pcf and a standard deviation of
2.9 pcf. The 341 1-B gauge density readings in the transverse direction ranged
from 123.5 pcf to 134.3 pcf with a mean of 129.8 pcf and a standard
deviation of 4.3 pcf.

22 Chapter 6 Description of Test Locations and Density Data

 Table 6
Gauge Densities Parallel to Paving Direction versus Core Densities -
Coffeeville. Mississippi
3411-SI
4640 3411-8 4640/Core Core
Cotr Gauge Gauge Density Density
Density Density Density Difference Difference
Location (pcf) Ipcf) Ipcf) (%) (%)

C-1 135.4 129.4 129.8 - 4.4 -4.1

C-2 135.4 133.9 130.3 - 1.1 -3.8

C-3 126.7 123.6 121.6 -2.5 -4.0

C-4 139.8 138.0 135.5 - 1.3 - 3.1

C-5 129.3 128.0 126.5 - 1.0 - 2.2

C-6 139.9 131.0 131.2 -6.4 -6.2

Mean 134.4 130.7 129.2 - 2.8 - 3.9

Standard 5.4 5.0 4.7 2.2 1.3

Deviation

Table 7
Gauge Densities Transverse to Paving Direction versus Core Densities -
Coffeeville, Mississippi
3411 -B/
4640 34 11-H8 4640/Core Core
Core Gauge Gauge Density Density

Density Density Density Difference Difference

Location (pcf) (pef) Ipcf| (%)
MM

C-1 135.4 132.4 129.8 - 2.2 - 4.1

C-2 135.4 133.6 130.3 - 1.3 - 3.8

C-3 126.7 125.6 121.0 .0.9 - 4.5

C-4 139.8 134.4 133.5 - 3.9 - 4.5

C-5 129.3 128.2 124.9 -0.9 - 3.4

C-6 139.9 132.6 129.4 - 5.2 -7.5

Mean 134.4 131.1 128.2 - 2.4 - 4.6

Standard 5.4 3.5 4.5 1.8 1.5

Deviation

Chapter 6 Description of Test Locations and Density Data 23

 Table 8
Gauge Densities Parallel to Paving Direction versus Core Densities - Enid
Lake, Mississippi
3411-8/
4640 3411-8 4640/Core Core
Core Gauge Gouge Density Density
Density Density Density Difference Difference
Location (pet) Ipci) (pcf) (%) _%)

E-1 138.3 130.9 132.5 - 5.4 - 4.2

E-2 130.7 112.4 126.2 - 14.0 -3.4

E-3 136.8 130.9 130.6 -4.3 -4.5

E-4 140.0 132.0 133.9 - 5.7 - 4.4

E-5 134.6 130.8 131.3 - 2.8 - 2.5

Mean 136.1 127.4 130.9 - 6.4 - 3.8

Standard 3.6 8.4 2.9 4.4 0.9

Deviation

Table 9
Gauge Densities Transverse to Paving Direction versus Core Densities -
Enid Lake, Mississippi

3411-8/
4640 3411-8 4640/Core Core
Core Gauge Gauge Density Density
Density Density Density Difference Difference
Location (pcf) (pef) _pcf) (%) 1%)

E-1 138.3 129.5 130.3 - 6.4 - 5.8

E-2 130.7 118.3 123.5 - 9.5 -5.5

E-3 136.8 129.6 134.3 - 5.3 - 1.8

E-4 140.0 132.1 133.0 - 5.6 -5.

E-5 134.6 129.6 127.9 - 3.7 5.,0

Mean 136.1 127.8 129.8 - 6.1 - 4.6

Standard
Deviation 3.6 5.4 4.3 2.1 1 .6

24 Chapter 6 Description of Test Locations and Density Data

 The difference between the core density values and the nuclear gauge
readings were also determined. The percent difference between the core
density and the 4640 gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged
from -14.0 to -- ' Ji a mean of -6.4 and a standard deviation of 4.4. The
percent difference between the core density and the 4640 gauge density
readings in the transverse direction ranged from -9.5 to -3.7 with a mean of
-6.1 and a standard deviation of 2.1. The percent difference between the core
density and the 3411-B gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged
from -4.5 to -2.5 with a mean of -3.8 and a standard deviation of 0.9. The
percent difference between the core density and the 3411-B gauge density
readings in the transverse direction ranged from -5.8 to -1.8 with a mean of
-4.6 and a standard deviation of 1.6.

Pennsylvania Turnpike

On September 30, 1992, the 4640 gauge was evaluated by WES personnel
on a microwave recycling job on the Pennsylvania turnpike near Lebanon,
PA. One and a half inches of pavement was milled up, stockpiled, and
recycled using Cyclean Incorporated microwave recycling process, and
replaced back at 1 1/2 inch depth. The recycled asphalt concrete mix
properties are listed in Table 3. The 4640 gauge testing was conducted and
the core densities were obtained in the same manner as described in Part 5,
with the exception that the readings were taken at 1.5 inch depth instead of the
2 inch depth.

The results of the core density values and nuclear gauge readings are listed
in Tables 10 and 11. The core density values ranged from 146.8 pcf to 148.6
pcf with a mean of 148.0 pcf and a standard deviation of 0.7 pcf. The 4640
gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged from 132.1 pcf to
147.4 pcf with a mean of 142.5 pcf and a standird deviation of 5.4 pcf. The
4640 gauge density readings in the transverse direction ;aaged from 134.7 pcf
to 147.1 pcf with a mean of 144.2 pcf and a standard deviation of 4.7 pcf.

The difference between the core density values and the nuclear gauge
readings were also determined. The percent difference between the core
density and the 4640 gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged
from -11.1 to -0.7 with a mean of -3.7 and a standard deviation of 3.7. The
percent difference between the core density and the 4640 gauge density
readings in the transverse direction ranged from -9.4 to -0.6 with a mean of
-2.9 and a standard deviation of 3.7.

Saratoga County Airport, New York

On July 9, 1992, WES personnel evaluated the 4640 gauge and the 3411-B
gauge at the Saratoga County Airport. The section of pavement that the
gauges were used on was a newly constructed runway extension. The asphalt
concrete material was produced and placed according the NYDOT
specifications. The asphalt concrete mix properties are listed in Table 3.

Chapter 6 Description of Toe.t Locations and Density Data 25

 Table 10
Gauge Densities Parallel to Paving Direction versus Core Densities -
Pennsylvania Turnpike

4640 46401Core
Core Gauge Density
Density Density Difference
Location (pcf) |pcf) |%)

P-1 148.6 132.1 - t1.1

P-2 146.8 142.8 -2.7

P-3 148.0 144.8 - 2.2

P-4 148.6 144.8 - 2.6

P-5 148.5 147.4 - 0.7

P-6 147.7 143.2 - 3.0

Mean 148.0 142.5 -3.7

Standard 0.7 5.4 3.7

Deviation

Table 11
Gauge Densities Transverse to Paving Direction versus Core Densities -
Pennsylvania Turnpike

4640 46401Core
Core Gauge Density
Density Density Difference
Location (pcf| (pcf) M%)

P-1 148.6 134.7 - 9.4

P-2 146.8 144.6 - 1.5

P-3 148.0 147.1 -0.6

P-4 148.6 147.1 - 1.0

P-5 148.5 145.8 - 1.8

P-6 147.7 145.7 - 1.4

Mean 148.0 144.2 - 2.9

Standard 0.7 4.7 3.7

Deviation

Gauge and core densities were obtained in the same manner as previously
described in Part 5.

26 Chapter 6 Description of Test Locations and Density Data

 The results of the core density values and nuclear gauge readings are listed
in Tables 12 and 13. The core density values ranged from 144.0 pcf to 150.7
pc. with a mean of 147.9 pcf and a standard deviation of 3.0 pcf. The 4640
gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged from 143.0 pcf to
160.6 pcf with a mean of 148.8 pcf and a standard deviation of 7.0 pcf. The
4640 gauge density readings in the transverse direction ranged from 143.2 pcf
to 166.5 pcf with a mean of 153.4 pcf and a standard deviation of 9.2 pcf.
The 3411 -B gauge density readings in the paralltl direction ranged from
138.8 pcf to 150.2 pcf with a mean of 144.9 pcf and a standard deviation of
4.1 pcf. The 3411-B gauge density readings in the transverse direction ranged
from 135.0 pcf to 148.9 pcf with a mean of 143.5 pcf and a standard
deviation of 5.2 pcf.

The difference between the core density values and the nuclear gauge
readings were also determined. The percent difference between the core
density and the 4640 gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged
from -3.5 to 11.5 with a mean of 0.8 and a standard deviation of 6.0. The
percent difference between the core density and the 4640 gauge density
readings in the transverse direction ranged from -3.4 to 14.8 with a mean of
4.0 and a standard deviation of 8.0. The percent difference between the core
density and the 3411-B gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged
from -3.6 to -0.3 with a mean of -1.9 and a standard deviation of 1.4. The
percent difference between the core density and the 3411-B gauge density
readings in the transverse direction ranged from -6.3 to -1.2 with a mean of
-2.9 and a standard deviation of 2.1.

WES Test Section

On September 1, 1992, WES personnel evaluated the 4640 gauge and the
3411 -B gauge on an asphalt concrete overlay test section that was constructed
for an Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) sponsored project during the
summer of 1989. The asphalt concrete overlay was approximately 2 inches
thick and was placed and produced according to COE specifications. The
asphalt concrete mix properties are listed in Table 3. Gauge and core
densities were obtained in the same manner as previously described in Part 5.

The results of the core density values and nuclear gauge readings are listed
in Tables 14 and 15. The core density values ranged from 145.5 pcf to 151.1
pcf with a mean of 149.1 pcf and a standard deviation of 3.1 pcf. The 4640
gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged from 142.2 pcf to
147.9 pcf with a mean of 145.1 pcf and a standard deviation of 2.9 pcf. The
4640 gauge density readings in the transverse direction ranged from 141.6 pcf
to 147.1 pcf with a mean of 145.0 pcf and a standard deviation of 3.0 pcf.
The 3411-B gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged from 141.7
pcf to 149.1 pcf with a mean of 146.3 pcf and a standard deviation of 4.0 pcf.
The 3411-B gauge density readings in the transverse direction ranged from
143.1 pcf to 150.6 pcf with a mean of 147.4 pcf and a standard deviation of
3.9 pcf.

Chapter 6 Description of Test Locations and Density Data 27

 Table 12
Gauge Densities Parallel to Paving Direction versus Core Densities -
Saratoga County Airport, New York
3411 -B/
4640 3411,8 46401Core Core
Core Gauge Gauge Density Density
Density Density Density Difference Difference
pcf) Ipc) (pcf)I (%)
Location

S-1 144.0 160.6 138.8 + 11.5 - 3.6

S-2 145.0 143.0 144.2 1.4 -0.6

S-3 150.1 144.9 146.3 - 3.5 - 2.5

S-4 148.2 145.8 144.8 - 1.6 - 2.3

S-5 150.7 149.5 150.2 - 0.8 -0.3

Mean 147.9 148.8 144.9 0.8 - 1.9

Standard 3.0 7.0 4.1 6.0 1.4

Deviation

Table 13
Gauge Densities Transverse to Paving Direction versus Core Densities -
Saratoga County Airport, New York
3411-81
4640 3411-B 46401Core Core
Core Gauge Gauge Density Density
Density Density Density Difference Difference
(pcf) (pco) (pcf) (%) (%M
Location

S-1 144.0 158.5 135.0 + 10.1 - 6.3

S-2 145,0 166.5 142.9 + 14.8 - 1.5

S-3 150.1 148.0 144.9 1.4 - 3.5

S-4 148.2 143.2 145.6 3.4 - 1.8

5-5 150,7 150.9 148.9 + 0.1 -1.2

Mean 147.9 153.4 143.5 + 4.0 - 2.9

Standard 3.0 9.2 5.2 8,0 2.1

Deviation

28 Chapter 6 Description of Test Locations and Density Data

 Table 14
Gauge Densities Parallel to Paving Direction versus Core Densities - WES
Test Sections
3411 -B/
4840 3411-5 4640/Core Core
Core Gauge Gauge Density Density
Density Density Density Difference Difference
lpcf) Ipcf) (pcf|)%i (%M
Location

W-1 145.5 142.2 141.7 - 2.3 -2.6

W-2 151.1 147.9 148.2 - 2.1 - 1.9

W-3 150.6 145.2 149.1 -3.6 -1.0

Mean 149.1 145.1 146.3 - 2.7 - 1.8

Standard 3.1 2.9 4.0 0.8 0.8

Deviation

Table 15
Gauge Densities Transverse to Paving Direction versus Core Densities -
WES Test Sections
3411-8/
4640 3411-8 4640/Core Core
Core Gauge Gauge Density Density
Density Density Density Difference Difference
fpcf) (pcf) (pcf) (%) MI
Location

W-1 145.5 141.6 143.1 - 2.7 1.7

W-2 151.1 147.1 148.5 - 2.7 -1.7

W-3 150.6 146.3 150.6 - 2.9 0.0

Mean 149.1 145.0 147.4 -2.8 - 1.1

Standard 3.1 3.0 3.9 0.1 1.0

Deviation

Chapter 6 Description of Test Locations and Density Date 29

 The difference between the core density values and the nuclear gauge
readings were also determined. The percent difference between the core
density and the 4640 gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged
from -3.6 to -2.1 with a mean of -2.7 and a standard deviation of 0.8. The
percent difference between the core density and the 4640 gauge density
readings in the transverse direction ranged from -2.9 to -2.7 with a mean of
-2.8 and a standard deviation of 0.1. The percent difference between the core
density and the 3411-B gauge density readings in the parallel direction ranged
from -2.6 to -1.0 with a mean of -1.8 and a standard deviation of 0.8. The
percent difference between the core density and the 3411-B gauge density
readings in the transverse direction ranged from -1.7 to 0.0 with a mean of
-1.1 and a standard deviation of 1.0.

30 Chapter 6 Description of Test Locations and Density Data

 7 Discussion of Results

This study was conducted to compare field core density values with nuclear
density gauge readings and to determine the effects of gauge placement. This
analysis involved comparing the results of field core data to nuclear gauge
readings for each gauge individually. The effects of gauge placement was
determined by comparing parallel readings to transverse readings at each
location. This part of the report summarizes the findings of the nuclear
density gauge evaluation.

Field Cores to 4640 Gauge

A summary of the means and standard deviations of the test results for the
evaluation of the Troxler model 4640 nuclear density gauge are listed in
Table 16 and are shown graphically in Figures 5 and 6. For the two projects
located in New York State, the 4640 gauge overestimated the density when
compared to standard field cores. At Albany and Saratoga, the nuclear gauge
overestimated the field density by 2.7 pcf and 3.2 pcf, respectively. These
asphalt concrete mixtures were primarily composed of limestone materials.
The 4640 gauge underestimated the field core density at the remaining sites,
where the asphalt concrete mixtures were primarily composed of siliceous
(sand and gravel) materials.

The standard deviations of the field cores ranged from 0.7 pcf to 5.4 pcf.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike site, a demonstration test site for microwave
recycling, had the lowest standard deviation between cores. The highest
standard deviation between cores was on the city road in Coffeeville, MS.
The standard deviation of the 4640 nuclear gauge readings ranged from 2.9
pcf to 6.9 pcf. The lowest standard deviation between 4640 nuclear gauge
readings was at the test site at WES. The highest standard deviation between
4640 nuclear gauge readings was at the parking lot in Enid, MS.

31
Chapter 7 Discussion of Results
 v,&

'...
6*
zn a

CDOO an CISo c'

C 0 0 4 -
~
0~ r ~
a a

(0

E
E
*U
I U1 UJ C- ", 3:1

3 2C h p er 7 Di c ss " Of R su t
 U 111W

C,)

z
-7--

U.
o0 L)
(
C
0)

C
C
z

LO mf C'J

(AOd) AJJSN30 SNV3bAN do AuivvyJvynfs

Chapter 7 Discussion of Results 3

 00

CO

U..-

Chpeo DsuionoReut
 Field Cores to 3411-B Gauge
A summary of the means and standard deviations of the test results for the
evaluation of the Troxler model 341 1-B nuclear density gauge are listed in
Table 17 and are shown graphically in Figures 7 and 8. The 3411-B gauge
overestimated the density when compared to standard field cores for all the
projects in this study (ranging from 2.2 pcf to 5.8 pcf).

The standard deviations of the field cores ranged from 3.0 pcf to 5.4 pcf
(Pennsylvania Turnpike was not tested with the 3411-B gauge). Saratoga and
WES had the lowest standard deviations and Coffeeville had the highest
standard deviation. The standard deviations of the 341 1-B nuclear gauge
readings ranged from 3.4 pcf to 8.6 pcf. The lowest standard deviation
between 3411-B nuclear gauge readings was at Enid and the highest standard
deviation was at Albany.

Parallel Versus Transverse Gauge Readings

4640 Nuclear Density Gauge

A summary of the means and standard deviations of the test results

comparing parallel data to transverse data for the 4640 gauge is presented in
Table 18. For the 4640 nuclear density gauge, the difference in density
between the parallel readings and the transverse readings ranged from 0.1 pcf
to 4.6 pcf. In most cases, the parallel readings were slightly lower than the
transverse readings. The only location where the data showed significant
difference was at Saratoga where the parallel density reading was 4.6 pcf
lower than transverse density reading.

The standard deviations of the data taken in the parallel direction ranged
from 2.9 pcf to 9.3 pcf. The standard deviations of the data taken in the
transverse direction ranged from 3.0 pcf to 9.2 pcf.

3411-B Nuclear Density Gauge

A summary of the means and standard deviations of the test results

comparing parallel data to transverse data for the 3411-B gauge is presented in
Table 19. For the 3411-B nuclear density gauge, the difference between the
parallel density readings and the transverse density readings ranged from
0.1 pcf to 1.4 pcf. In all cases but one (WES), the parallel density readings
were slightly higher than the transverse density readings.

The standard deviations of the data taken in the parallel direction ranged
from 2.9 pcf to 7.9 pcf. The standard deviations of the data taken in the
transverse direction ranged from 3.9 pcf to 9.6 pcf.

Chapter 7 Discusuion at Results 35

 giJ

r- ~ ~L 4
Ce L ) r) C4

m •

a*0 V 4.

;&is' 46 6

* •

S.• . . . . . i I I I . I Q|

36 Chapter 7 Discussion of Results

 L
_jI _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

CLF

CCC
8w

LEU

00 00

(UOd) AIISN30 SNV3VYdo Auvv*~Jfls

37
Chapter 7 Discussion of Results
aw
C,

WWj

4-

ca

0 CO 0

U~d)AIIS~a
NOLLIA3 aldCIN.LS~okwvqvys
C
(D

LL
38C
Chaper Disusson o Reult
 C
do 3", 0" 4 Ig-

1: •" - • 0 4 0)

to1
aI 0 i 06 wi *

o t

40a0
0l

0
=. 8. d .. .

C, n cuu.. I V II
w

0
CO

Cmg
00

00

7
Cheptr Dicsso of Reslt
 - - ===_=. *

SO

*Y

""0
I0
C ""
Cm
iS
CC
w ;to• to4'+
CE3
C? IL
00 -i

I--
to
0
SC.B-!"E f-
% m 0 ,"-

CA

I-
Ma~ Nti~ m v

. *

40 Chaptef 7 Discussion of Results

 8 Conclusions and
Recommendations

Conclusions
Based on the results of this investigation, which included a literature
review, field study, and laboratory study, the following conclusions were
made on the use of surface density nuclear gauges for measuring the in-place
density of thin layers of asphalt concrete:

a. The Troxier Model 4640 Thin Layer Density Gauge is very sensitive to
improper seating. Improper seating can result in erratic gauge
readings.

b. Significant scatter in the individual dati points existed for both gauges.

c. The 4640 gauge mean densities were higher than the field core mean
densities for asphalt concrete mixes where the predominant aggregate
was carbonate (limestone).

d. The 4640 gauge mean densities were lower than the field core mean
densities for asphalt concrete mixes where the predominant aggregate
was siliceous (gravel and granite).

e. In most cases, the standard deviations of the 4640 gauge readings were
significantly higher than the standard deviations of the field core
densities.

f. There were only small differences between average parallel and

transverse density readings for the 4640 gauge.

g. The Troxier Model 3411-B Surface Moisture-Density Gauge mean

densities were always lower than the field core mean densities.

h. The standard deviations of the 3411-B gauge were significantly higher

than the standard deviations of the field core densities for Albany, NY
and Saratoga, NY.

Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations 41

 i. There were only small differences between average parallel and

transverse density readings for the 3411-B gauge.

Recommendations
Based on the conclusions derived from the results of the field/laboratory
study, the following recommendations were made:

a. Due to the excessive variability and high standard deviations between

the gauges and the laboratory densities, surface density nuclear gauges
should not be used as the sole method for acceptance testing of asphalt
concrete pavements.

b. Surface density nuclear gauges can be used as quality control tools for
asphalt concrete pavements (e.g., establishing roller patterns).

c. More research is needed to determine the effect of gauge calibration on

the density readings of surface density nuclear gauges.

d. The chemical composition of the asphalt mixture should be determined

to know whether or not the gauge readings will be higher or lower
than the field cores.

e. Extreme care should be taken by the operator in setting up gauges to

eliminate the possibility of set-up error.

42 Chapter 8 ConchJmsiorn- and R~ecommn•Irdations

References

AASHTO Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods

of Sampling and Tesgiiig. (1982). Methods of Sampling and Testing,
Part II, Thirteenth Edition, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

ASTM Standards Annual Book. (1990). "Traveled Surface Characteristics,"

Section 4, Construction, Vol. 04.03, Road and Paving Materials, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

Belt, G., Santelli, N., and Hansen, M. (1990). "Evaluation of Nuclear

Density Gauges on Asphalt Concrete," draft report FHWA-RD-90-092,
Office of Engineering and Highway Operations Research and
Development, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.

Burati, J. L. and Elzoghbi, G. B. (1987). "Correlation of Nuclear Density

Results with Core Densities," Transportation Research Record 1126,
pp 53-67, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Forest Service. (1955). "Field

Tests of Nuclear Instruments for the Measurement of Soil Moisture and
Density," Miscellaneous Paper No. 3-117, for the US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station.

Department of Defense, MIL-STD-620A. (1966). Military Standard Test

Methods for Bituminous Paving Materials.

Hughes, C. S. (1962). "Investigation of a Nuclear Device for Determining

the Density of Bituminous Concrete," pp. 400-417, Proceedings of the
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists.

Kennedy, T. W., Tahmoressi, M., and Solaimanian, M. (1989). "Evaluation

of a Thin Lift Nuclear Density Gauge," paper prepared for the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 43.

(1967). "Density and Moisture Content Measurements by Nuclear
Methods," Highway Research Board, Washington, DC.

43
 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 125.
(1971). "Optimization of Density and Moisture Content Measurements by
Nuclear Methods," Highway Research Board, Washington, DC.

Nielsen, B. (1992). "Thin Lift Nuclear Density Gauge," Vol. 11, No. 4,
A5phalt Review, Austrnnian Asphalt Pavement Association, Hawthorn,
Australia.

Regimand, A. (1987). "A Nuclear Density Gauge for Thin Overlays of

Asphalt Concrete," Transportation Research Record 1126, pp. 68-75,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Reinaas, V. (1989). "Accuracy and Precision of Thin Lift Nuclear Density

Gauges," Office of Materials, Research and Standards, Minnesota
Department of Transportation.

Stroup-Gardiner, M. and Newcomb, D. (1988). "Statistical Evaluation of

Nuclear Density Gauges Under Field Conditions," Transportation Research
Record 1178, pp. 38-46, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

3400 Series Operators Manual. (1984). Troxler Electronic Laboratories,

Research Triangle Park, NC.

Transportation Research Circular 321. (1987). "Nuclear Density Gauge

Monitoring of Asphalt Concrete Compaction," Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.

Troxler Model 4640 Instruction Manual. (1987). "Thin Layer Density

Gauge," Fifth Edition, Troxier Electronic Laboratories, Research Triangle
Park, NC.

Webster, S. L. (1974). "Determination of In-Place Moisture and Density by

Nuclear Methods," Instruction Report IR S-74-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

44
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMBNo 0700o188

is estimated to average 1 hour per response, incIudng the tine for reviewing instructions searching erisrqig dlat ources gatner.nq ano rra.rita-,r
Pub!c reporting burden for tis collec••O of rrinformation
•et•lofr
iep data needed and completing and reviewing the colection ol information Send comments regarding this burden estirmate or any omer aspect of thns coiietior ofr ntormnatior n•trinuotrgg
tot reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services. Directorate tor information Operations and Reports 1215 jetlerson Davis Highway Su*e 1204 Arvnglon VA 2;?524302 and ir, r,,
Offlice of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704.01 8) Wasthington DC 20503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
September 1993 Final report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Evaluation of Surface Density Nuclear Gauges for Acceptance Testing of
Asphalt Concrete Overlays
6. AUTHOR(S)
Lee E. Tidwell. Randy C. Ahlrich, and George L. Regan

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

U.S. Armn' Engineer Waterways Experiment Station REPORT NUMBER
Geotechnical Laboratory Technical Report GL-93-19
3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

:9. SPONSORINGIMONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

Federal Highway Administration AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Washington, DC 20591

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield. VA 22161.

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report documents field evaluations of a thin lift nuclear gauge and a surface moisture/density nuclear gauge for as-
phalt concrete mixtures. The study includes density determinations by conventional methods, density by nuclear methods and
a review of literature. A field evaluation of two commercially available nuclear gauges was performed on an airport apron in
New Albany. NY, a city road in Coffeeville, MS. a parking lot in Enid. MS, the east-west extension of the Pennsylvania Turn-
pike near Lebanon, PA. an airport runway extension in Saratoga, NY, and a test section at the U.S. Army Engineci Water-
ways Experiment Station (WES), in Vicksburg, MS.
The basis of this study was to determine if densities obtained from surface density nuclear gaugeFs correlate with corre-
sponding densities measured in the laboratory from cored samples. The effects of gauge placement was also examined. Data
from each project are included in the report. An analysis was performed on the data. Graphs were created for optimum
visualization.
Nuclear gauges of this type are recommeded as quality control tools but not for quality assurance and acceptance. Due to
excessive variability and high standard deviations between the nuclear gauges and laboratory densities, gauges are not recom-
mended as the sole means of acceptance testing asphalt concretes.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Asphalt concrete Nuclear density gauge 52
Bulk density Troxler
16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION !20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard
PrescribW byForm 298Z39.
ANSI Sid (Rev.
18 2-89)
298-102